AlBaqir:


You have simply deviated from the literal meaning of the hadith. "Yawning is from Shaitan" is what the hadith says not "Shaitan loves to see a person yawn".

@underline, Besides, on what basis was the so-called interpretation is based? Another hadith or senses?

@bold, that is another baloney of lies. No be only fullness of stomach that cause you yawn abeg. However if you can substantiate your point with strong evidence that shaitan laughed only to the yawning of fullness of stomach. That might be more sensible



All the above are just analogy. None of them support their analogy with clear evidence. Period.

Newnas, over to you. Where art thou?

AlBaqir:


Did Prophet yawn or not? Allah says shaytan can never near or control his devoted servants. It is part of human measure (Qadar) that if you are feeling sleepy or hungry or tired or low oxygen in your lung, you yawn to expel excess carbon dioxide.

My recent research implies that "low on oxygen" is the 'cause' of yawning is a myth. From scientific point of view there is no conclusive evidence that yawning is as a result of inadequate oxygen. They are yet to determine it cause. The hadith appears to be ahead of scientific findings. A doctor was asked if inadequate oxygen causes his client to yawn?



His reply was, Most of us yawn more often in the early morning and late evening. Does it mean you’re tired? Bored? Not getting enough oxygen? [size=13pt]It turns out that we actually know very little about why we yawn.[/size] Dr. Anthony Komaroff, Harvard Medical School

Dr. K as he is fondly called said further that when he was in medical school, 'one of my teachers speculated that yawning was a response to low oxygen or high carbon-dioxide levels. That theory was fairly common. It was also plausible: When we open our mouths and take in a deep breath, we take oxygen into the body and expel carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is waste produced by the body’s cells and needs to be eliminated.

Unfortunately, the theory that yawning reflects low oxygen or high carbon dioxide levels isn’t true. Yawning occurs even when oxygen and carbon dioxide levels are normal. And research has shown that volunteers do not yawn less after being exposed to high oxygen levels, and do not yawn more after being exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide.'



The above ^ throws the theory of low oxygen in the garbage bin. So basically, there is no definitive cause of yawning. The current "causes" doctors could come about are numerous.

AlBaqir:


You have simply deviated from the literal meaning of the hadith. "Yawning is from Shaitan" is what the hadith says not "Shaitan loves to see a person yawn". hadith: shaitan laughs when we yawn

@underline, Besides, on what basis was the so-called interpretation is based? Another hadith or senses?

@bold, that is another baloney of lies. No be only fullness of stomach that cause you yawn abeg. However if you can substantiate your point with strong evidence that shaitan laughed [b]only to the yawning of fullness of stomach. That might be more sensible[/b]
.

The particluar Hadiths are:


Bukhari: Book 4: Volume 54: Hadith 509
“Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: 'Ha', Satan will laugh at him."


Muslim: Book 42: Hadith 7130
“The son of Abu Said al-Khudri reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When one of you yawns, he should keep his mouth shut with the help of his hand, for it is the devil that enters therein.”


Fact is, not every Yawn is from Shaitan. The yawning come between the prayers are considered as from Satan particularly a act from Satan. Or when you try to do dhikr overnight, Shaitan tries to prevent you, make you drowsy and yawn to discourage you from getting close to Allah. From this sense, yes, yawning comes from Shaitan. The below hadith confirms which yawning is from Satan



Hadith - Mishkat, Narrated AbuHurayrah , transmitted by Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah.

"Allah's Messenger said, Yawning in prayer is an act of Shaytan, so when one of you yawns he should restrain it as much as possible. In another version it the word are: He should place his hand upon his mouth.


From the above source it is confirmed that the yawning during the prayers are from Satan. Where as physical yawn is not from Satan.


Other Related Ahadith:


Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Yawning is from Shaytaan, so if any of you feels the urge to yawn, let him resist it as much as he can." (Muslim, 2994)



Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Sneezing is from Allaah and yawning is from Shaytaan. If any of you yawns, let him place his hand over his mouth. If he says ‘Ah, ah!’ (makes a noise when yawning), Shaytaan laughs from inside him." Abu ‘Eesaa said: this is a saheeh hasan hadeeth. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, no. 2746; classified as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 4130)


According to another report also narrated by Imaam Ahmad, Shaytaan enters when a person yawns. (Saheeh al-Jaami’, 426)

So the basis for my interpretation is by bringing ALL related ahadith to derive meaning. @highlighted, I didnt use ONLY. You put that in. I didnt say Yawning ONLY caused by Shaitan


And yes, Prophet (saw) NEVER Yawned. I dont see record of that. This further proves that "Yawning" mentioned in the ahadith might be in the context of not being devoted enough to Allah. Matter, I notice this matter was discussed on NL before by Seun and co years ago

https://www.nairaland.com/47056/mohammed-never-yawned-all-life

Empiree:


My recent research implies that "low on oxygen" is the 'cause' of yawning is a myth. From scientific point of view there is no conclusive evidence that yawning is as a result of inadequate oxygen. They are yet to determine it cause. The hadith appears to be ahead of scientific findings. A doctor was asked if inadequate oxygen causes his client to yawn?


His reply was, Most of us yawn more often in the early morning and late evening. Does it mean you’re tired? Bored? Not getting enough oxygen? [size=13pt]It turns out that we actually know very little about why we yawn.[/size] Dr. Anthony Komaroff, Harvard Medical School

Dr. K as he is fondly called said further that when he was in medical school, 'one of my teachers speculated that yawning was a response to low oxygen or high carbon-dioxide levels. That theory was fairly common. It was also plausible: When we open our mouths and take in a deep breath, we take oxygen into the body and expel carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is waste produced by the body’s cells and needs to be eliminated.

Unfortunately, the theory that yawning reflects low oxygen or high carbon dioxide levels isn’t true. Yawning occurs even when oxygen and carbon dioxide levels are normal. And research has shown that volunteers do not yawn less after being exposed to high oxygen levels, and do not yawn more after being exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide.'


The above ^ throws the theory of low oxygen in the garbage bin. So basically, there is no definitive cause of yawning. The current "causes" doctors could come about are numerous.

^ Empiree, you did more wrong than good. I listed that yawning often occur when you are feeling sleepy, tired, hungry and low oxygen (in the lungs). You simply took one out of 4 natural occurrences of yawning. Even you know scientific fact about yawning as related to low oxygen in the lungs is proven but no scientist fixed it solely on that. Some theories argued affirmative while other says its not necessarily the cause. The fact remains you yawn due to a lots of reasons naturally. Its a spontaneous reaction towards those natural attributions like feeling sleepy, hungry, tiredness. Even babies yawn.
Read more about yawning here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/facts-yawning-why-we-yawn-contagious_n_3398301.html

# The fact that the gas you expel during yawning has highest percentage of carbon dioxide means yawning is a way of controlling excess CO2 in our system. When you yawn, you expel very large volume of this gas whereas breathing out only expel low volume. So, the theory of yawning as a result of excess CO2 and low O2 can never be over look. The theory holds. What doesn't hold is to conclude that yawning is caused only as a result of that.

Empiree:


The particluar Hadiths are:

Bukhari: Book 4: Volume 54: Hadith 509
“Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: 'Ha', Satan will laugh at him."


Hadith - Mishkat, Narrated AbuHurayrah , transmitted by Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah.

"Allah's Messenger said, Yawning in prayer is an act of Shaytan, so when one of you yawns he should restrain it as much as possible. In another version it the word are: He should place his hand upon his mouth.

You can only find 99.8% of this kind of ahadith from one person - Abu Hurairah. We have given you hadith from sahih Bukhari and Muslim where people of his time used to accused him of lying. And he himself admitted it that "qala Rasulullah" might be from his bag of fabrications.
I confidently put it to you that yawning is part of human fitrah. Even animals yawn.

Empiree:


Fact is, not every Yawn is from Shaitan. The yawning come between the prayers are considered as from Satan particularly a act from Satan. Or when you try to do dhikr overnight, Shaitan tries to prevent you, make you drowsy and yawn to discourage you from getting close to Allah. From this sense, yes, yawning comes from Shaitan. The below hadith confirms which yawning is from Satan

@underlined, Ma sha Allah! You are coming home gradually. At least from an adamant "yawning is from shaitan" to "not every yawning is from shaitan", that's a drastic improvement.

Other assumptions of yours above are pure fallacy. Every amal comes with a certain niyat. If your niyat is strong, it override and control your physical activities. For example, if you wakes up for Qiyam layl, you yawn repeatedly. That is very natural. It takes sometimes to get normal. Your intention is only the determinant factor to continue or halt your Qiyam layl. Shaitan only whispers with his bad advice. It is very silly to say "that yawning comes from him to prevent you from doing dhikr".

Empiree:

From the above source it is confirmed that the yawning during the prayers are from Satan. Where as physical yawn is not from Satan.

Other Related Ahadith:

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Yawning is from Shaytaan, so if any of you feels the urge to yawn, let him resist it as much as he can." (Muslim, 2994)

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Sneezing is from Allaah and yawning is from Shaytaan. If any of you yawns, let him place his hand over his mouth. If he says ‘Ah, ah!’ (makes a noise when yawning), Shaytaan laughs from inside him." Abu ‘Eesaa said: this is a saheeh hasan hadeeth. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, no. 2746; classified as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 4130)

Which one is "physical yawning" again? You never stop amazing me. Again bulk of such tales can only come from Abu Hurairah.

Empiree:


And yes, Prophet (saw) NEVER Yawned. I dont see record of that. This further proves that "Yawning" mentioned in the ahadith might be in the context of not being devoted enough to Allah.

Nabi Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa ahli was a human being. Quran confirmed in several places using the word "Bashar". And Prophet himself confirmed. Therefore every single fitrah of human being was also practiced naturally by him. Our evidence is the Quran and Prophet sayings that he, salallahu alayhi wa ahli, is (was) a human being. This is exactly the argument of our Lord in His glorious book, Quran, against the Christians about Nabi Isa, salawatullah wa salamuhu alayhi when they took him for God. Allah says he was only a human and that he and his mother eats (and defecate).

# There are lots of myth with no single prove about the Prophet. Some says he walks with two feet at a time. Some says when he walks, his foot never touches ground. Some says he can turn his head 360 degree (imagine as a result of hadith when he commanded his sahabah during saff, "straighten your row for I can still see you from my back".

# So, Empiree the onus lies on your shoulder to provide us with sahih hadith which says Nabi do not yawn. Funny enough there is another lies of Abu Hurairah in Sunni "sahih" book of ahadith which says shaitan came to disturb the prayer (Qiyam layl) of the holy Prophet to the fact that it turned physical until Prophet grabbed him from the neck and wanted to tie him to the pole of the mosque but Nabi salallahu alayhi wa ahli remembered the Du'a of Nabi Suleiman. E be like say yawning no override the Prophet that's why Shaitan had to come in person. Whereas this same Abu Hurairah (or whoever) will report that shaitan can never even withstand Umar's voice let alone waiting for him.

Empiree:
Newnas, over to you. Where art thou?

Please avoid the mention of my name wirh this Ahlu fitnah wal Jama'ah.

lexiconkabir:


So in nutshell you believe that the sunnah has been tampered with even when Allaah said he will protect it?

Newnas said this not too long ago. Yet telling us here Sahih Bukari 100%

Newnas:





You don't get it, Soheehul Bukharee is not infallible, in fact a number of scholars have mentioned a few errors in the book such as Albany and a number of scholars before him. So it's not the book that is a fundamental if the religion.

The acceptance and belief in the report of reliable (in religious uprightness and memory) narrators, from Generation to the next without any cut in the chain is a fundamental of our religion.
Any report that satisfies the five conditions of a reliable report must be accepted:

# Religious uprightness of the men in its chain

# Tested and trusted memory of the men in its chain

# The chain must be joined not cut i.e each narrator must have heard it from his sheikh, and his sheikh from his own sheikh and so on till the end.
Not some people just found some books from their sheikhs and rely on them because some dotard said "it's the truth'!

#It must not contradict the report of those who are more reliable than him either in reliability or number.

# It must not have hidden defects.

these five conditions have a lot of explanations, and thousands (maybe millions) of books have been written to explain the finest details.

So, the reports of soheehul bukharee satisfies these conditions the most among books for the following reasons:

#Imam Bukharee is a mountain of hadith, his memory is the peak

#His reliability is also the peak because of his undoubted piety, from what we know. And we judge by what we see, only Allah knows the unseen.

# Bukharees knowledge and understanding of the science of hadith and the strength of reports is unrivalled. A great indicator is that Imam Muslim, the author of the great Soheeh is a student of Bukharee, though it is said that muslim had finished his book before meeting bukharee.

# Imam Bukharee specifically write his book on authentic reports only. Not just authentic, but purely authentic.

# Imam Bukharee dreamt that he was wiping flies of the Prophet alyhissolaat wassalaam, this was interpreted to mean that he would cleanse the prophet's sunnah from the lies of people like your sheikhs.

# Scholars, generation after generation have tested and revised the book and have found its reliability and consistence to be of the peak.

# Imam Bukharee observed Solah of istikhaarah before adding any report to his book.

#Bukharee even gave an extra condition after the regular ones to ensure that only the most authentic reports are relied on.

To be continued...

As for the "Sunna" you keep talking about, nothing is tampered with when it comes our obligatory rituals. They are protected. As you can see, there is no disagreement amongst muslims except the Qur'aniyun. "Recommended sunnah" amongst them are corrupted like we've have discussing so far. I mean things like some ridiculous narrations. Many of them are fact , a lot more are bogus. We are free to accept or reject them. So Sunna in voluntary practices is what i am talking about. As you can see, that's where they attack islam the most. They lost anytime they attack our obligatory rituals (Salat, Zakat, Ramadan, Hajj)

Empiree:


Newnas said this not too long ago. Yet telling us here Sahih Bukari 100%




As for the "Sunna" you keep talking about, nothing is tampered with when it comes our obligatory rituals. They are protected. As you can see, there is no disagreement amongst muslims except the Qur'aniyun. "Recommended sunnah" amongst them are corrupted like we've have discussing so far. I mean things like some ridiculous narrations. Many of them are fact , a lot more are bogus. We are free to accept or reject them. So Sunna in voluntary practices is what i am talking about. As you can see, that's where they attack islam the most. They lost anytime they attack our obligatory rituals (Salat, Zakat, Ramadan, Hajj)

If they sound absurd to you then its really not anybody's problem, as for that khabees lifting texts from Bukhari to "expose"(as he claims) sahih Bukhari, i really dont have anything to defend because he has not given us anything (from a scholarly point of view) to show that those ahadith are defective, what he is doing is the same thing those christians did when they opened the thread about the procedures on how to use the toilet, they made so much fun of it because it sounds absurd to them, so this is the exact thing that khabees is doing, if you like keep being apologetic to him, mind you, i will keep repeating it, ALL THE TEXTS IN SAHIHUL BUKHARI ARE AUTHENTIC! if you feel its not, then tell us what's wrong with it , maybe the isnad or the adl(of the narators) or the matn from a scholarly view.

lexiconkabir:


If they sound absurd to you then its really not anybody's problem, as for that khabees lifting texts from Bukhari to "expose"(as he claims) sahih Bukhari, i really dont have anything to defend because he has not given us anything (from a scholarly point of view) to show that those ahadith are defective, what he is doing is the same thing those christians did when they opened the thread about the procedures on how to use the toilet, they made so much fun of it because it sounds absurd to them, so this is the exact thing that khabees is doing, if you like keep being apologetic to him, mind you, i will keep repeating it, ALL THE TEXTS IN SAHIHUL BUKHARI ARE AUTHENTIC! if you feel its not, then tell us what's wrong with it , maybe the isnad or the adl(of the narators) or the matn from a scholarly view.

seems you didnt read newnas' comment i just quoted where he confirmed scholars faulted some narrations in Sahih Bukhari.

Apologetic?. I guess you used that wrongly. I am the least to do that.

You actually dont need his scholarly view before you challenge him. I bet he's just playing sectarian card. This same hadith on Yawning, I am sure he will defend it in another related topic if or when it opens. He's just pulling your legs here becus of ideological differences. He NEVER believes (SAW) is just ordinary human being. I didnt bother saying anything on that cus he knows very well what hes doing

As for those christians, i dont stress over those nincompoops. There is nothing to refute. They have made up their minds. All i can do is play along with their brains except for the new one truly seeking answer. However, i disagree with you again for saying Sahih Bukhari is 100%. That's the most ridiculous thing to say when there are clear ridiculous stuff in it. I dont think i need to cite example. That's your homework. I think you brothers are doing same thing you accused other sects of - TAQLEED because scholar's opinion is the final and that's it. You forgot that they usually sign off with "Wallahu Ta'ala Allam"


They are scholars because they worked hard to achieve it. The hadith he quoted about Yawning requires research. You can't just quote the hadith and say "it is authentic" without your own intellectual research on it or at least edit some pre-existing researches. You think i just came up with my replies to baqir?. Not at all. I did my own research and concluded it cant be fabricated hadith. It is not mandatory to believe it either. But what is worse is to just claim it is authentic becus scholars said so, especially if hadith is controversial.

Sheik Imran Hussein would say the worst kind of students are those who agree with everything their teacher says without brilliant objection. He said if you keep agreeing with your teacher, a time would come when you are alone and challenged but you wont be able to defend yourself other than to say "awon alfa wa so pe". In that case opinion of scholar may be irrelevant at the time.

There is nothing wrong doing your independent research contrary or in conformity with scholar doesnt really matter. I did my research on Yawning hadith, inserted my findings, and even edited pre-existing scholarly works before i replied him. So it is not enough to say someone is deviant just to excommunicate the person. That's absolutely irrelevant. Qur'an exhorts us to use aql that Allah gave to us. Our intellect is not to be laying dummy in our brain. The problem you brothers are having which is quite understandable is, "if past scholars do not fault a hadith, who the hell is us to fault it."

I have seen many put up arguments like that. But unfortunately, other than obligatory practices, any other questionable narrations are subject to scrutiny. Actually i already gave example earlier twice but neither of you respond to it. Another one is "literal descriptions of Allah" in Sahih hadith. That one is just messed up.

Empiree:
seems you didnt read newnas' comment i just quoted where he confirmed scholars faulted some narrations in Sahih Bukhari.

Ofcourse Ahl Sunnah wal jama'ah do not believe in the infallibility of any book except the book of Allaah, but labelling Bukhari's book as sahih is not wrong due to objective research done as regards the ahadith in it....

Apologetic?. I guess you used that wrongly. I am the least to do that.

You actually dont need his scholarly view before you challenge him. I bet he's just playing sectarian card. This same hadith on Yawning, I am sure he will defend it in another related topic if or when it opens. He's just pulling your legs here becus of ideological differences. He NEVER believes (SAW) is just ordinary human being. I didnt bother saying anything on that cus he knows very well what hes doing

As for those christians, i dont stress over those nincompoops. There is nothing to refute. They have made up their minds. All i can do is play along with their brains except for the new one truly seeking answer. However, i disagree with you again for saying Sahih Bukhari is 100%. That's the most ridiculous thing to say when there are clear ridiculous stuff in it. I dont think i need to cite example. That's your homework. I think you brothers are doing same thing you accused other sects of - TAQLEED because scholar's opinion is the final and that's it. You forgot that they usually sign off with "Wallahu Ta'ala Allam"


They are scholars because they worked hard to achieve it. The hadith he quoted about Yawning requires research. You can't just quote the hadith and say "it is authentic" without your own intellectual research on it or at least edit some pre-existing researches. You think i just came up with my replies to baqir?. Not at all. I did my own research and concluded it cant be fabricated hadith. It is not mandatory to believe it either. But what is worse is to just claim it is authentic becus scholars said so, especially if hadith is controversial.

Sheik Imran Hussein would say the worst kind of students are those who agree with everything their teacher says without brilliant objection. He said if you keep agreeing with your teacher, a time would come when you are alone and challenged but you wont be able to defend yourself other than to say "awon alfa wa so pe". In that case opinion of scholar may be irrelevant at the time.

There is nothing wrong doing your independent research contrary or in conformity with scholar doesnt really matter. I did my research on Yawning hadith, inserted my findings, and even edited pre-existing scholarly works before i replied him. So it is not enough to say someone is deviant just to excommunicate the person. That's absolutely irrelevant. Qur'an exhorts us to use aql that Allah gave to us. Our intellect is not to be laying dummy in our brain. The problem you brothers are having which is quite understandable is, "if past scholars do not fault a hadith, who the hell is us to fault it."

I have seen many put up arguments like that. But unfortunately, other than obligatory practices, any other questionable narrations are subject to scrutiny. Actually i already gave example earlier twice but neither of you respond to it. Another one is "literal descriptions of Allah" in Sahih hadith. That one is just messed up.

Maybe you didnt get the point i was trying to make, let me word it in another way, I will not waste my time on criticism done solely on whims and desires, anyone criticising an hadith in bukhari must do that from a scholarly angle, and when i say scholarly angle, I'm not telling you to quote scholars (like you assumed) but follow the academic process in which an hadith is being scrutinized, thats all i ask, if the criticism are valid, by Allaah, i will accept them....... I hope you now understand me?

lexiconkabir:


Ofcourse Ahl Sunnah wal jama'ah do not believe in the infallibility of any book except the book of Allaah, but labelling Bukhari's book as sahih is not wrong due to objective research done as regards the ahadith in it....

Doesnt this contradict everything you've been saying?. Isn't the same thing I have been saying all along?. I do not dispute using "Sahih". I only disputed saying it is 100%. There is difference btw the two.

Maybe you didnt get the point i was trying to make, let me word it in another way, I will not waste my time on criticism done solely on whims and desires, anyone criticising an hadith in bukhari must do that from a scholarly angle, and when i say scholarly angle, I'm not telling you to quote scholars (like you assumed) but follow the academic process in which an hadith is being scrutinized, thats all i ask, if the criticism are valid, by Allaah, i will accept them....... I hope you now understand me?

What is more academic than what we are doing here?. Is there another definition for it?. Have I really quoted scholar?. You and newnas been doing that. I am not here to criticize just any hadith of Bukhari. You read my last post wrong actually or you simply missed it.

Empiree:
Doesnt this contradict everything you've been saying?. Isn't the same thing I have been saying all along?. I do not dispute using "Sahih". I only disputed saying it is 100%. There is difference btw the two.

And never did i use 100% for Bukhari, you can point out where i said or implied so, you must have misunderstood my first post for "infallibility" of sahih Bukhari..... Whereas only the book of Allaah is infallible...

What is more academic than what we are doing here?. Is there another definition for it?. Have I really quoted scholar?. You and newnas been doing that. I am not here to criticize just any hadith of Bukhari. You read my last post wrong actually or you simply missed it.

There are the five procedures you'll go through;

A connected Isnaad (chain) of narrators: Nobody narrates from their teacher's teacher, for example; everybody met in person and heard directly from the person who narrated to them.

All narrators are known, trustworthy, and righteous: They don't commit major sins in public. We know them (their biography), i.e. it's not "someone named X told me ..."

Precision and Accuracy of Narrators: All the narrators in the chain are known to have strong memories and narrate accurately.

Doesn't Conflict Known Hadith: If there's one hadith that conflicts a well-known larger body of hadith, it can become rejected.

No Hidden Defects: This is a technical requirement, and refers to tadlees (subtly hiding who you are narrating the hadith from) among other things.

So you have to tell us whats wrong with the hadith using those five requirements....

lexiconkabir:


If they sound absurd to you then its really not anybody's problem, as for that khabees lifting texts from Bukhari to "expose"(as he claims) sahih Bukhari, i really dont have anything to defend because he has not given us anything (from a scholarly point of view) to show that those ahadith are defective, what he is doing is the same thing those christians did when they opened the thread about the procedures on how to use the toilet, they made so much fun of it because it sounds absurd to them, so this is the exact thing that khabees is doing, if you like keep being apologetic to him, mind you, i will keep repeating it, ALL THE TEXTS IN SAHIHUL BUKHARI ARE AUTHENTIC! if you feel its not, then tell us what's wrong with it , maybe the isnad or the adl(of the narators) or the matn from a scholarly view.

Ya Ahlu Fitnah wal Jama'ah! What else do you want? Your "sahih" hadith alleged that:

# Nabi Muhammad salallahu alayhi wa ahli approved a well water where dead dogs, clothe for menstruation etc are being dumped, to be pure for wudu

# That Nabi Sulaiman, whom Quran confirmed to be devoted servant of Allah, slept with 100 women in a night, and that he never remember his lord. Yet those ahadith are bunch of contradictory messages: 100 or 90 or 70 or 60 women?

We can go on and on. Yet your fanatical brain say those ahadith are authentic. What scholarly opinions do you need to know that those ahadith are filthy lies?

Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani And Albani criticism of Some ahadith in Sahih Bukhari

# Allamah al-Albani himself criticized many ahadith in the two Sahih and he submits this justification:

But, whoever is in doubt concerning the verdicts I have given concerning some ahadith (in Sahih al-Bukhari), let him refer to Fath al-Bari, and he will find there lots and lots of things (in Sahih al-Bukhari) which have been criticized by al-Hafiz Ahmad b. Hajar al-Asqalani, who is rightly named the Amir al-Muminin in Hadith, and whom I believe - and I suppose that anyone who has this knowledge (i.e science of hadith) would agree with me - that no woman has ever given birth to anyone like him after him." {Ref: Fatawa (Cairo: Maktabah al-Turath al-Islami, 1st edition, 1414 H), p.525

Unfortunately some many Sunni scholars also criticized al-Albani for criticizing some of those ahadith. Allamah Sheik Hassan al-Saqqaf (from Jordan) was a golden example. He even wrote a book against Allamah al-Albani trying to defend those ahadith.

Empiree:

You actually dont need his scholarly view before you challenge him. I bet he's just playing sectarian card. This same hadith on Yawning, I am sure he will defend it in another related topic if or when it opens. He's just pulling your legs here becus of ideological differences. He NEVER believes (SAW) is just ordinary human being. I didnt bother saying anything on that cus he knows very well what hes doing

Brother your misconceptions are becoming unbearable faah. If we say Nabi Muhammad salallahu alayhi wa ahli is above us, we mean in spirituality, morals, knowledge, ikhlas etc. These are the areas where Allah confirmed his superiority over all creation. This is very different saying he was a human being with human natural characteristics like eating, drinking, defecating, sneezing, yawning etc. Saying he was not ordinary human that he does not yawn or sneeze, and walk with two legs at a time, turn his head at 360 degree etc are absurd, lies with no authentic narration to support either.

And let me add, am not pulling anybody's leg o on the issue of the mythical belief that sahih Bukhari's ahadith are 100%. And this is not on ideological differences. After all some bold Sunni Shuyukh have publicly criticized some ahadith in this book. Does that make them "Shia" playing ideological differences?

lexiconkabir:


And never did i use 100% for Bukhari, you can point out where i said or implied so, you must have misunderstood my first post for "infallibility" of sahih Bukhari..... Whereas only the book of Allaah is infallible...

This submission makes it a book with error(s). Period! Yet you cannot stomach it that sahih Bukhari contain error(s). In line with Sunni ilm hadith, all ahadith in Sahih Bukhari ONLY passes the tests of chain of transmission but not the matn. Some matn (content) are pure lies. This is the area where some of your boldest scholars criticized.

lexiconkabir:


And never did i use 100% for Bukhari, you can point out where i said or implied so, you must have misunderstood my first post for "infallibility" of sahih Bukhari..... Whereas only the book of Allaah is infallible...

That was newnas who said that but unfortunately you backed him up

There are the five procedures you'll go through;

A connected Isnaad (chain) of narrators: Nobody narrates from their teacher's teacher, for example; everybody met in person and heard directly from the person who narrated to them.

All narrators are known, trustworthy, and righteous: They don't commit major sins in public. We know them (their biography), i.e. it's not "someone named X told me ..."

Precision and Accuracy of Narrators: All the narrators in the chain are known to have strong memories and narrate accurately.

Doesn't Conflict Known Hadith: If there's one hadith that conflicts a well-known larger body of hadith, it can become rejected.

No Hidden Defects: This is a technical requirement, and refers to tadlees (subtly hiding who you are narrating the hadith from) among other things.

So you have to tell us whats wrong with the hadith using those five requirements....

I think you doing yourself disservice now. I simply pointed out that sahih Bukhari can not be 100% and you just confirmed that. You seem to be placing me in hostile position with Bukhari. This should rather be directed at baqir. I'm not going to be digging and finding faults unless when it's absolutely necessary.

I don't think you should call them Ahlu Fitna Wal-Jama'ah though. I know the brother gets foul mouth (not lexiconkabir ) but the way we going about differences in mordern time, I don't think we can be in-laws as time goes.

Empiree:
I don't think you should call them Ahlu Fitna Wal-Jama'ah though. I know the brother gets foul mouth (not lexiconkabir ) but the way we going about differences in mordern time, I don't think we can be in-laws as time goes.

He used to be a sensible and tender fellow before joining the bandwagon of fitnah. Many a times I have repeatedly remind them of Quranic ruling for dialogue yet they never cease using foul languages. Imagine your lexiconkabir addressing me as "khabees". Now I've realized the only language these guys understand is filthy ones. So calling them Ahlu Fitnah wal Jama'ah is justified.

^ this is serious. I am aware actually and some brothers have directly and indirectly advised them. I think no.1 problem is they think knowledge of islam is restricted to Arabia They do not trust scholars outside of that region. You notice this anytime names other than Saudi scholars are mentioned, they snubbed,

What they don't understand is Saudi shuyukh are famous by the virtues of Makkah and Medina. I already achieved what i wanted. That is Sahih Bukhari is NOT 100% as they portrayed. Thank God they just confirmed it. That's all my point. I am not interested digging XYZ ahadith to proof that.

There are other bunch of authentic narrations in Sunnah Abu Daud, Tirmidhi, Muwatta Malik, ibn Maja, musnad hamad, especially that speak about prophecies that dont sit well with the Kingdom.

Empiree:
^ this is serious. I am aware actually and some brothers have directly and indirectly advised them. I think no.1 problem is they think knowledge of islam is restricted to Arabia They do not trust scholars outside of that region. You notice this anytime names other than Saudi scholars are mentioned, they snubbed,

..

You might be right but the clear reason of their foul languages is because it is part of their manhaj. Hardly will you come across a Wahabi scholar without abusing or call other than him, names. Sheik ibn Taymiyyah was known for this and he was Wahabi grandmaster. Allamah al-Hilli, a Shia scholar of Ibn Taymiyyah's contemporary was known as Ibn Mutahar (son of the pure). Ibn Taymiyyah never ceased calling him Ibn khabees (son of impure). Sheik Muhammad al-Ghazali among other Ahlu Sunnah past Shuyukh met same fate with Ibn Taymiyyah's tongue. Sheik Ali Jabata, his heir Abu Ibeji (Ibadan), Agbarigidoma et al are champions in using foul languages. Commercial salafis like Eleha, Alaro et al were able to control their tongues to a reasonable extent.

These people never obey Allah when He warned against bad mouthing, calling names, foul languages etc. They continue to follow their grandmaster.

Empiree:


I think you doing yourself disservice now. I simply pointed out that sahih Bukhari can not be 100% and you just confirmed that. You seem to be placing me in hostile position with Bukhari. This should rather be directed at baqir. I'm not going to be digging and finding faults unless when it's absolutely necessary.

He demand you to employ the science of Hadith in proving Sahih Bukhari is not 100% authentic. So get your butt up, given that the science of Hadith is the criterion for determining the authenticity of an Hadith by traditional Muslim scholars, it doesn't seem he or anyone is placing you in a hostile position with Bukhari.

AlBaqir:


You might be right but the clear reason of their foul languages is because it is part of their manhaj. Hardly will you come across a Wahabi scholar without abusing or call other than him, names. Sheik ibn Taymiyyah was known for this and he was Wahabi grandmaster. Allamah al-Hilli, a Shia scholar of Ibn Taymiyyah's contemporary was known as Ibn Mutahar (son of the pure). Ibn Taymiyyah never ceased calling him Ibn khabees (son of impure). Sheik Muhammad al-Ghazali among other Ahlu Sunnah past Shuyukh met same fate with Ibn Taymiyyah's tongue. Sheik Ali Jabata, his heir Abu Ibeji (Ibadan), Agbarigidoma et al are champions in using foul languages. Commercial salafis like Eleha, Alaro et al were able to control their tongues to a reasonable extent.

These people never obey Allah when He warned against bad mouthing, calling names, foul languages etc. They continue to follow their grandmaster.

I can't stop laughing, So instead of you to follow the path of your "son of the pure" you decided to follow the "Wahabi grandmaster"?! What does this say about you ehn?! On one hand you say these people never obey Allah (SWT) when He (Jalla Jalalluhu) warned against bad mouthing, calling names, foul languages etc. but you also started doing the same, not to mention previous episodes of you bad mouthing (and all derogatory remarks for) the Companions (RAA) and wives of the Prophet (SAW)...Please make up your mind, are you really following Allah (SWT) and His Prophet (SAW) or you follow your own desires, whims and in recent times, science

usermane:


He demand you to employ the science of Hadith in proving Sahih Bukhari is not 100% authentic. So get your butt up, given that the science of Hadith is the criterion for determining the authenticity of an Hadith by traditional Muslim scholars, it doesn't seem he or anyone is placing you in a hostile position with Bukhari.

OMG! I can't believe it, I do agree with you usermane...Wow! this is something!

usermane:


He demand you to employ the science of Hadith in proving Sahih Bukhari is not 100% authentic. So get your butt up, given that the science of Hadith is the criterion for determining the authenticity of an Hadith by traditional Muslim scholars, it doesn't seem he or anyone is placing you in a hostile position with Bukhari.

Welldone my man. But you failed to see that he already admitted it is not 100% accurate. That's all I wanted to know. I am not the one making fun of Sahih Bukhari collections and i see no reason for me to do that. I defend his collections more than the questioners. For you, I know you well. You just looking for more holes to disparage "mainstream" as you proudly call us and make yourself feel good

Empiree:
Welldone my man. But you failed to see that he already admitted it is not 100% accurate. That's all I wanted to know. I am not the one making fun of Sahih Bukhari collections and i see no reason for me to do that. I defend his collections more than the questioners.

He says the Book is not infallible, but to accept some particular Hadith in it to be inauthentic(confirming its fallibility) as you have claimed, he needs you to prove so by subjecting those Hadith through Science of Hadith and reveal what particularly makes those Hadith inauthentic.

For you, I know you well. You just looking for more holes to disparage "mainstream" as you proudly call us and make yourself feel good

I am not looking to disparage anyone. I spot the holes already and it is up to you to prove me wrong. Cherry-picking Sahih Hadith after giving credence to the science of Hadith is hypocritical, a betrayal of the efforts of the Hadith scholars. Worse still, it open doors for any Muslim to subjectively accept or reject Hadith without consistency, proper methodology or sincerity. I feel you and many traditional Muslims are already guilty of this.

usermane:


He says the Book is not infallible, but to accept some particular Hadith in it to be inauthentic(confirming its fallibility) as you have claimed, he needs you to prove so by subjecting those Hadith through Science of Hadith and reveal what particularly makes those Hadith inauthentic.

I know what he meant. But, again, since I dont have problem with hadith collectors, i see no reason to go and pinpoint ahadith which are inauthentic. It doesnt make sense to me as a person. Besides, neither you nor him or his likes would take me serious. what is dis-servicing to these great men who collected ahadith, is to deliberately pinpoint hadith either for ideological or sectarian differences which I am not interested. I can only criticize a hadith spontaneously during discussion. And even at that, i have to do some investigation before i come to that conclusion. I do not have record of demonizing hadith online or offline and it is not going to start now.

I am not looking to disparage anyone. I spot the holes already and it is up to you to prove me wrong. Cherry-picking Sahih Hadith after giving credence to the science of Hadith is hypocritical, a betrayal of the efforts of the Hadith scholars. Worse still, it open doors for any Muslim to subjectively accept or reject Hadith without consistency, proper methodology or sincerity. I feel you and many traditional Muslims are already guilty of this.

The same way you spotted holes without giving your own scholarly view. I dont have to. Preliminary standard I use to determine sahih Bukhari and others can not be 100% is because the people who complied them in the absence of prophet(SAW)'s supervision is bound to have some errors. That's common sense. That's my STANDARD. And that's all i was trying to establish. I have no intention of going after a particular hadith.

Underlined, that's why it is not for every TOM, Dick and Harry. Thats why i said earlier that one should not reject hadith just bcus it doesnt fit one's intellect. Usually if i have problem with a hadith but majority are cool with it i dont say anything out of respect for them unless when it is absolutely necessary. I dont go about authenticating or demonizing any hadith as I deem fit. I believe if a hadith is controversial, it should simply be investigated instead of simply throwing it out or saying "scholars considered it valid....full stop". Giving credence to "Science of hadith" does not mean the whole hadith is valid.



Okay, you know what?. I will give you what you want. This is my standard. The way i determine hadith depends on it importance.

If a hadith has a major impact in making obligatory decisions and it conforms with Quran, it is given GREEN LIGHT.


If hadith is in direct conflict with Quran, I simply place it at the bottom on my "waiting list" meaning, it falls within WEAK or FABRICATION


If hadith is neutral i:e neither conform nor against Qur'an, and has no weight in Islamic decision, I hold on to it without giving my opinion until a situation or condition occurs. I pay close attention to details around me like politics, modern economy, social or current affairs etc, to see if the hadith may be active. I dont throw baby out with bath water.

This method does not interfere with "science" employed by early scholars or the chains or narrators etc. No. i simply do not worry about that. I believe that it's necessary sometimes to review or re-access opinion of scholars but doesnt mean we have to condemn them entirely. I believe Islam evolves on matters that are flexible and should be understood with TIME. This should be done by scholars. That's why Muslims need new scholars with backbone made of steel and iron. Not scholars made of recycle paper like you

There is no flexibility in obligatory Rituals.

usermane:


So, are you not raising Hadith beyond Quran when you accept Hadith to recite your salat silenly whilst ignoring Qur'an rule to recite aloud?

Your words aren't saying what your heart says. For so long you have lead me on with those words, though I harbored suspicions. Suspicions which were confirmed when you couldn't make the promise I requested in my last post. This confirms as far as Islam is concerned, you regard the teachings of your clerics and your customs or pre-existing belief above the Qur'an. Why else would you recite your salat silently when Qur'an directly stipulates otherwise?

Another thing I observe is you lack a well defined methodology of accepting Hadith. Since some some of the Hadith you acknowledge contradict the Qur'an and some of those you reject are Sahih Hadith, you evidently just cherry-pick Hadith based on the teachings of your clerics, your pre-existing notions and customs. I don't give a damn this as long as you are transparent and not in denial about it

Peace.

I think empiree has Over-flogged this this issue already. Why are you still beating around the bush?

udatso:

I think empiree has Over-flogged this this issue already. Why are you still beating around the bush?

Hadith, Tafsir, Sirah, History.... You 'd really trade clear Quranic directives to abide by those? You don't seem to know me or what drives my stand for sola scriptura.

usermane:


Hadith, Tafsir, Sirah, History.... You 'd really trade clear Quranic directives to abide by those? You don't seem to know me or what drives my stand for sola scriptura.

We dont know what future holds. But say for instance, you eventually become "Islamic Studies Teacher" somewhere, how you gonna teach without highlighted part?.

usermane:


Hadith, Tafsir, Sirah, History.... You 'd really trade clear Quranic directives to abide by those? You don't seem to know me or what drives my stand for sola scriptura.

Oh......i have known you here for some years now. I have just avoided engaging you in any way cos most brothers always do but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything.
Empiree has explained and countered every point you raised but you keep dragging it further. He explained the meaning of lail as per the saum fast, not reciting loud.. ...but it never changes your view.
In my opinion, I think you decided to believe what you think is more comfortable to you.

udatso:

Oh......i have known you here for some years now. I have just avoided engaging you in any way cos most brothers always do but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything.
Empiree has explained and countered every point you raised but you keep dragging it further. He explained the meaning of lail as per the saum fast, not reciting loud.. ...but it never changes your view.
In my opinion, I think you decided to believe what you think is more comfortable to you.

Drag it? I left the thread long before you mentioned me yesterday. Empiree's assertion that Sunset begins night (layl), to justify breaking fast at clear daylight will only convince uneducated literates. His justification of reciting salat silently is too weak that even him realize it. His excuses are flimsy, aren't too different from the excuses of the people of the Book. Once you find in your scholars' teachings, the justifications for deviating from the scriptures, you 've lost it.

udatso:

Oh......i have known you here for some years now. I have just avoided engaging you in any way cos most brothers always do but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything.
Empiree has explained and countered every point you raised but you keep dragging it further. He explained the meaning of lail as per the saum fast, not reciting loud.. ...but it never changes your view.
In my opinion, I think you decided to believe what you think is more comfortable to you.

Dont expect him to understand anything. Here is his latest saga.



Listen to this man again. Is he now going too far. What does he not understand?

usermane:


Left because Religion section mods were moving my threads to Islam sections [size=15pt]where they force me to testify to other than God[/size] before I post and then eventually delete my thread. So, I felt it was time I left. You have Nairalanders here who share your views and back you even in your absence, I have none.
You 're only retiring from this section right? It 'll be good to know another side of you.

What is it this man doesnt undersrtand?. Which "other God" Muslim affirm in saying:


[size=19pt]La illaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rosulullah[/size]


Is This Dude Insane or What ?


Which Other God Muslim affirm here "There Is No Deities Besides Allah, Muhammad Is His Messanger"


Can Someone help what I am missing here?

usermane:

Is this LAIL or not? .

Can you break your fast just about this sky?